Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Before we deal with the observations of a well-respected self defense expert on George Zimmerman and his case, allow me to make a few observations.

I think that I would have done things differently than Zimmerman.  First of all, I try not to be out like that without my dog, who is an 82 pound Doberman named Heidi.  She is a significant degree of protection.  Second, if you own the light, you own the night.  I wouldn’t have been out without a good tactical light.  So I usually carry my Surefire light with me at night if I’m out, even if I’m walking my dog in the neighborhood.  Finally, my three e‘s are egress, evasion and escape.  If I had been there that fateful night and was close enough to have been jumped by someone, I would consider my tactics to have been faulty.

But in the end, it isn’t against the law to walk at night without a tactical light, without a dog, and without a plan for egress, evasion and escape.  And it’s also not against the law to carry a weapon, and I do that as well.  I said earlier that I think I would have done things differently than Mr. Zimmerman.  Suppose that I didn’t have a tactical light or an 82 pound Doberman.  And suppose further that I was responsible for my neighborhood watch, having seen my neighborhood ransacked by hoodlums, pilfered by gangsters and terrorized by criminals.  And suppose that there was no one else that night, knowing that the police are an irrelevant feature to the security of my neighborhood.  Unless we are in Zimmerman’s shoes in that exact situation, it’s easy to say what we would or wouldn’t have done, but much harder to have any confidence in our claims.

So with that setup, let’s turn to Massad Ayoob (via Say Uncle), who tells us here why he has been silent on the Zimmerman case.  Mr. Ayoob’s entire article is highly recommended, but some of his thoughts are repeated here.

If I’m your criminal attacker, you don’t have to wait for me to shoot you before you can shoot me to defend your life, and you don’t even need to wait until the gun is in my hand. If I announce my intent to murder you and reach for a gun, I’m bought and paid for right there.  And it doesn’t matter whether the gun I’m reaching for is in my holster, or yours. That’s why every year in America, when thugs try to grab a policeman’s gun and are shot, the shootings are ruled justifiable.

Even before Martin’s reach for Zimmerman’s still-holstered pistol, the circumstances that were proven to the satisfaction of the jury showed that Zimmerman was justified in shooting his attacker.  Remember when defense attorney Don West said in the defense’s opening statement that Martin was armed with the sidewalk?  That sounded ludicrous to lay people, and I would have phrased it differently myself, but professionals understood exactly what he was talking about.

The operative principle at law is called “disparity of force.” It means that while your opponent(s) may not be armed with a deadly weapon per se, their physical advantage over you is so great that if their ostensibly unarmed assault continues, you are likely to die or suffer grave bodily harm. That disparity of force may take the form of a much larger and stronger assailant, a male attacking a female, force of numbers, able-bodied attacking the handicapped, skilled fighter attacking the unskilled, or – in this case – position of disadvantage.

Position of disadvantage means that the opponent has full range and freedom of movement, and you don’t.  You’re seat-belted behind your steering wheel while he rains punches onto your skull through the open window…or you are down and helpless in a martial arts “mount” while your opponent pounds you at will.

Finally, we have the clearly proven element of Martin smashing Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. If I picked up a chunk of concrete or cement and tried to smash your skull with it, you would certainly realize that you were about to die or be horribly brain-damaged if you didn’t stop me. It would be what the statutes call “a deadly weapon, to wit a bludgeon.” There just isn’t a whole hell of a lot of difference between cement being smashed into head, and head being smashed into cement.

Clearly, Trayvon Martin possessed the power to kill or cripple Zimmerman. That is why, under law, Zimmerman was justified in defending himself with a per se deadly weapon.

Bob Owens has similar observations.  When Mr. Martin jumped Mr. Zimmerman and began to beat him, the night could have only ended with one of them dead or crippled and possibly permanently disabled.  The gun saved Zimmerman’s life, and that’s why he carried it.  It performed the function for which it was designed, and while all of us who carry weapons hope that we never have to put it to such use, if we are ever faced with that situation we have what we need to reverse that “disparity of force.”

David Codrea:

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has issued clarifying statements about a ruling by Hinds Country Circuit Court Judge Winston Kidd preventing a law redefining “concealed” weapons from taking effect, the Daily Journal is reporting today.

Hood now maintains the ruling clarifies “Mississippi as a state where people can openly carry a weapon doesn’t apply outside the judge’s Hinds County jurisdiction,” the report states.

“I do not believe that the injunction would prevent someone outside Hinds County, who was openly carrying a weapon, from using the statute as a defense,” the report quotes the Attorney General. “In other words, the judge’s decision would only prevent Hinds County residents from availing themselves of the defenses contained in the new law.”

I had previously said that “Judge Kidd is a candidate for impeachment, and if I were the governor and attorney general I would go ahead with the law and call a special session of Congress to throw Kidd out.”

Everything is proceeding as I had foreseen.  Next step?  Impeachment of Judge Kidd.

Motherboard:

The technology is here. So-called “smart guns” are being programmed to recognize a gun owner’s identity and lock up if the weapon ends up in the wrong hands. Entrepreneurs and engineers have been developing technology to make safer guns since the early ’90s, and by now we’ve got working prototypes of guns that read fingerprints, hand grips or even sensors embedded under the skin. But after 15 years of innovation, personalized guns still haven’t penetrated the marketplace.

Why? Smart guns are caught in the crosshairs of a heated debate over guns, for one thing. Pro-gun groups see it as an attack on Second Amendment rights and, you know, freedom. Anti-gun groups worry that if guns are safer it will inspire more people to buy them. Perhaps more troublesome is that consumer demand just isn’t there. “The gun industry has no interest in making smart-guns. There is no incentive for them,” Robert J. Spitzer, a political science professor at SUNY Cortland told the New York Times.

No incentive? What about saving lives?

Some people argue that even if all guns came equipped with the latest personal lock technology, it would only make a tiny dent in gun violence, since the vast majority of gun deaths aren’t caused by accidents, but by people firing their legal weapon. Still, the flood of tragic news of senseless preventable violence keeps the smart gun conversation kicking. Interest in the technology saw new life in the wake of Sandy Hook. In response to the tragedy, President Obama called for research into gun safety technology, offering prizes to companies that developed affordable personalized guns. The Sandy Hook Promise Innovation Initiative is also working with Silicon Valley to offer grants for new gun safety technology.

But the problem isn’t coming up with ideas. There are already numerous startups developing biometric technology—sensors that identify fingerprints, hand geometry, eye scans and other biological features to authenticate the owner of a gun a la James Bond’s gun in Skyfall that’s been coded to his palm print.

The problem is getting anyone to buy them. A group called Safe Gun Technology developed a functioning prototype of biometric fingerprint recognition technology in 2008, and recently tried to crowdfund the money to build a market-ready version. The Indiegogo campaign fell $48,000 short of its fundraising goal.

Robert McNamara, cofounder of TriggerSmart, a startup that uses radio frequency identification (RFID) to match owner and gun, has tried to convince the gun manufacturers to license the product, but none have agreed. If the gun industry won’t budge, it could take a government mandate to get people to buy personalized guns.

Rep. John Tierney of Massachusettes is taking on that fight.

Gosh, if someone could have just seen this coming.  Really seen this coming.  You know, really, really seen this coming.  I mean, just flat out, seen this for what it really is.

Of course, there are other gun owners to hear as well.  Regarding Tierney’s fight, bring it!  We’ll see just how well that “government mandate” works out.

Some “experts” think not.

A manufacturer of a robustly popular product wants to capture what it perceives as missed-opportunity sales by opening a third production plant, this one in North Carolina.

The company is pledging to create hundreds of jobs and bring a renowned brand and sure-fire economic shot-in-the-arm to the community.

However, there are analysts skeptical of the expansion plans, saying the company already is facing saturation of its product in the U.S. marketplace amid formidable competition. They aren’t sure consumer demand will continue to outpace supply even though the short-term future is bright.

The company: Dell Inc., the world’s largest PC manufacturer. The time: summer 2004. The community: Winston-Salem.

Fast forward six years, and Dell is preparing to close its $110 million plant and finish eliminating the remainder of a workforce that reached 1,400 at its peak. The company is shifting production to third-party vendors after falling laptop prices eroded its market share for desktops and consumers proved increasingly indifferent to a customized product.

Fast forward another three years, and you find Rockingham County reveling in what local officials and residents consider as a godsend – an announcement that Sturm, Ruger & Co. Inc. has chosen a 220,000-square-foot plant in Mayodan as its preferred site for a third firearms manufacturing plant.

If an unknown amount of local and state incentives are approved in August, local economic officials say they are confident Ruger will commit to spending $30 million on capital investments and hiring a workforce of 300 to 700 full-time employees. The plant would be expected to open by early spring.

It would be the first manufacturing expansion for the Southport, Conn., company since 1988. The company also has plants in Newport, N.H., and Prescott, Ariz. There are about 2,100 employees companywide.

Still, there are analysts who question whether opening a third Ruger plant is prudent. They wonder how many firearms gun buyers want or need before feeling fully stocked.

“While most industry executives believe this surge in demand should still have some steam left in the tank, it’s safe to say it certainly won’t last forever,” said Steve Symington, an analyst with The Motley Fool.

Yes, our “expert” is with The Motley Fool.  Give yourself time to quit laughing and let’s cover what’s really happening here.

First of all, Ruger is having trouble meeting demand, and the U.S. is as in love with its guns as it has ever been.  There is always a demand for good gun manufacturing, especially with firearms made in the U.S. (including every part and component).

But second, take note of the location of the home office.  Connecticut.  What this “expert” with The Motley Fool doesn’t understand is the loyalty of gun owners, or conversely, the wrath of their judgment wrought upon gun manufacturers disloyal to America.  For a brief primer on this, consider the Smith & Wesson boycott.

Ruger is betting on expansion, but not just any expansion.  They’re relocating South.  Look for operations in Connecticut to decrease over time.  If Ruger doesn’t take this step, they will go out of business, just like Remington in New York.

If firearms manufacturers stay in the North, they will become obsolete and eventually go out of business.  If they relocate to the South, a welcome party awaits.  So much for the “experts.”  Ruger knows what they’re doing.

First is Max Velocity, who gives us another good entry on the presuppositions under-girding being able to operate in the field, which he titles More Detail On Rucking Fitness.  This is another valuable post from Max, and he gives us an example of what we should all aspire to achieve.  But I feel like I’m listening to my son (former Marine) describe humping 100+ pounds kit for twenty miles in 105 degree heat at Camp Lejeune.  At some point these guys have got to adjust their counsel for 53 year old guys with a slight belly, who walk five miles a day and get to the gym two or three times a week for weights.  Somewhat in shape, but not nearly the degree to which Max describes.

From Montrose, Texas we have another example of SWAT misbehavior.

“A man identified himself as the SWAT sergeant. He said I had exactly ten minutes to come downstairs or they were going to start tearing my house down,” Castorena said. “About a minute later, the SWAT team runs through my front yard and batter rams my front door.”

Castorena was led out in handcuffs and charged with felony assault.

The whole thing started over loud music.  No, seriously.  Loud music.

David Codrea’s articles are always worth reading, but one in particular bears reading again regarding judge Kidd making the injunction against the Mississippi open carry law permanent.  We’ve discussed this before, and I just can’t help but believe that turning to judge Kidd at all in any form whatsoever is illegitimate, even attempting to get him to overturn his ban.  The man did something unconstitutional, as he has no right to ban laws because he thinks they are unclear.  Judge Kidd is a candidate for impeachment, and if I were the governor and attorney general I would go ahead with the law and call a special session of Congress to throw Kidd out.

Next, read Kurt Hofmann on gun control pushers hoping to exploit the Zimmerman case for more oppressive laws.  Of course they do.  Has a statist ever done anything or taken any action to decrease the power of the state?  Can a leopard change its spots?

Always drop by Western Rifle Shooters Association every day, and I appreciate WRSA for bloggrolling me.  I consider this an achievement.

“The AR-15 muzzle flash is the new torch of liberty” according to Representative Steve Stockman, R- Texas.  Just so.  Related, one commenter at reddit/guns has a post on AR-15s that might interest you, some of it good, some of it so-so, but be warned.  If you carry on that discussion here, we don’t use Eugene Stoner’s name in any other context but effusive praise or hushed reverence.

Finally, Bob Owens has a rifle suggestion for Zimmerman now that he’s a free man.  Not all that dissimilar from mine (excluding the EOTech).  I have my tactical light on an offset mount because I don’t want it under the weapon and in front of the forend grip.

I hold my weapon the way my son taught me to, using the forend grip only as an anchor point rather than grasping it, and thus my hand uses much of the forend of the weapon.  This is also similar to the way Travis Haley teaches, not coincidentally, and the more exaggerated version of this is in vogue with SF where the arm is outstretched straight and gripping the forend of the weapon on the side completely without a grip in order to avoid over-rotation of the weapon during target acquisition (this technique comes from the gamers).

UPDATE: David Codrea has some thoughts on hauling rucks.  When you look at it that way, I guess I’ll bring up the rear with David and die in a firefight while laying down cover fire for the rest of you.  So be it.  There are worse ways to go.

The Frisky:

Sure, it’s a stretch to connect children who play with water guns or even play with video games to the seriously mentally disturbed people who go shoot up classrooms and buses and hair salons. I can’t help but wonder, though, if we’ve become a little more desensitized to those real life shootings because we like how fun playing with guns can be. It’s fun if you’re a grown man with his buddies, sitting in a tree, patiently lying in wait to shoot a deer. It’s fun if you’re a kid running through a backyard shooting water at your aunt.

But maybe it shouldn’t be.

Let’s deal with this as a serious objection to guns, because for too many people it is.  First of all, hunting is a well respected and serious sport, and an activity that has kept many a family fed for many years.  Furthermore, the deer population of Missouri, for example, is higher now than in colonial America because of modern game management practices, and culling the population from hunting is part of that.

As for the shooting sports, see Jerry Miculek shoot a 40-round magazine and tell me he isn’t enjoying himself.  This is a man who spends much of his life at the range and participates in (and wins) competitive shooting competitions.

Next, the population of feral hogs is increasing and even lethal removal isn’t enough to control the damage to the land.  Shooting them with weapons is environmentally friendly.

Moving to war (which seems to occupy much of the author’s attention), war is certainly a horrible thing, but that doesn’t mean that having to fight them is evil.  On the contrary, there are good wars, and if your world view cannot see the good in defense of your country, then you should revisit your world view.  You have deeper problems than with guns.

From wars fought against aggressors to prevention of tyranny, you should consider the lives saved by the availability of firearms.  Finally, if you are unwilling to look upon guns this way, you had better hope that your children can safely operate them for when that rapist or home invader violates your space.

Your children are doing just fine playing with water guns.  As for me, I have said before that my own grandson, just two years old, gets wide-eyed and excited when Papa brings his guns out.  But he knows that he can only touch them when Papa is with him.  I look forward to shooting his first 10/22 with him, and I won’t be suffering from any silly moral dilemmas on that day.

NR:

Ilion has a spa; a shoe shop; a trio of pizza joints (Franco’s, Sorrento, and Lombardo’s); a McDonald’s; a bowling alley; and a few more of exactly the sorts of places that you’d imagine you’d find in towns of its size. Pretty much all of the businesses rely on Remington for their livelihood. “That little shoe shop, for example,” Kollitides says, pointing, “makes all of our safety shoes.”

And so Remington tends to get its way in matters civic. “They moved the town so we could expand,” I’m told by plant manager Paul Merz. “See that factory building there? That used to be the center of town.” Later, I’m shown photographs of houses literally being picked up and transported down the street to make way for the plant.

They moved the Erie Canal, too. In 1827, the company, seeking access to the new waterway and to the expanding domestic market, switched from its original location in the Remington family forge at Ilion Gulch to a new position closer to the canal. Business boomed. Eighty-eight years later, the tables were turned: To facilitate the company’s growth, the town altered the canal’s path. “Ilion has molded itself to Remington,” Kollitides smiles.

[ … ]

I ask the predictable question: Despite the plant’s history and the cohesion of the town, do New York State’s business environment and sweeping new anti-gun legislation tempt the company to move? Some disgruntled gun enthusiasts believe that manufacturers should leave states that are hostile to their interests. Remington produces many weapons that are now illegal in New York State.

In answer, I am referred to a statement that was released immediately after Governor Cuomo signed the disastrous SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act in January. It reads: “Remington will not run or abandon its loyal and hard working 1,300 employees without considerable thought and deliberation. Laws can be overturned and politicians voted out of office, but the decisions we make today will affect our people, their families and entire communities for generations.”

Charles C. W. Cooke got taken to the cleaners in this article.  He rolled over and failed to address the hard issues or press the hard questions.  He soft-pedaled one of the best questions, and was satisfied to be referred to a press release.

Every union shop knows that the company needs to operate.  That’s a horrible answer, and it doesn’t change the fact that union shops destroy companies.  Remington has recently announced expansion in North Carolina, not by any stretch a union shop state.

The labor pool will be just as good and cheaper than a union shop.  And Remington no more believes that New York is reconcilable with constitutional rights than you and I do.  Their press release kicks the can down the road and fails to deal with hard issues.   The notion that gun control can be reversed in New York is a fiction.  The answer is to move and leave New York to the consequences of its actions and decisions.

Their union shop knows the company needs to operate.  But it doesn’t, not really.  The bottom line will decide whether Remington can stay in Ilion.  As for me, I have begun to look for alternatives to that nice Remington 700 series rifle I wanted.  Too bad.  If they relocate their entire operation to the South, I might reconsider.

David Codrea:

“U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last night dismissed a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC’s ban on the sale and possession of handguns,” the Violence Policy Center crowed back in 2004, before the historic Heller decision. “Judge Walton’s 68-page ruling in Seegars v. Ashcroft upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976.

“In his opinion, Judge Walton … wrote: ‘[T]he Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,’” the VPC release continued.

David has a discussion of the secret authority wielded by judge Walton that’s well worth the time.  Another from Kurt Hofmann.

The problem with that argument is that the distinction between soldiers and “peace officers” (don’t hear that term much anymore, do you?) is rapidly disappearing. Can anyone look at the massive abuses perpetrated by “peace officers” in Boston in pursuit of the surviving alleged Marathon bomber, and dispute that “law enforcement” is becoming an occupying army?

To the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that’s just fine, with executive director Josh Horwitz cautioning us to “not pile too much on the militarization of law enforcement,” because “they have a tough job.”

Besides, none of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates object to the police being armed with so-called “assault weapons” (although in that context, they might call them “patrol rifles,” or “personal defense weapons“), which we are told are “weapons of war, that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets,” and are thus not suitable for civilian ownership. Does that not make the police who are issued them soldiers?

Read Kurt’s setup for the situation and the argument for the following comments to make any sense.

Kurt is commenting on what we discussed in And Now They Trample The Third Amendment (which WRSA picked up and linked).  Kurt makes an interesting point of logic.  If the gun controllers and collectivists argue that AR-15s are weapons of war, then they cannot rationally and consistently object to the application of the third amendment to law enforcement – that is, for collectivists who want at least the pretext of being consistent and rational.

Bob Owens has a wonderful takedown of the argument that the founders didn’t imagine weapons of war in the hands of civilians, entitled  ‘ … but the founders couldn’t have imagined more than muskets.” (I had asked Bob to give me the URL for this article several weeks ago and he couldn’t produce it, which means that I know more about what Bob is writing than he does, or something like that).

Bob’s piece is masterful and necessary reading.  Using Kurt’s syllogism and Bob’s article, it means that there is no distinction (which also means that the Hughes amendment is obscene), and both that the police are guilty of a constitutional violation and we should have access to these “weapons of war” since the founders envisioned that we would.

Turning back to David, I don’t really find it surprising that this collectivist judge doesn’t believe in the second amendment, even though it is troubling.  What I find most interesting is how he expressed his demurral: ” … the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms.”

Dear readers, listen to me carefully and pay close attention.  Might does not make right.  If it did the Nazis were justified in killing Jews.  The fact that you have guns and are willing to perish to keep them (like me) doesn’t mean that it’s your right to own them.  Furthermore, the government – voters, rulers, policy, pieces of paper including even the constitution – does not confer rights.  The government is not in a position of justifiably conferring anything on you.

Listen again, dear reader.  If you believe that the constitution confers the right to own a gun, you will always be subject to the vicissitudes of constitutional interpretation and the latest hermeneutic fashions.

I rarely press my religious beliefs, but there is a time and occasion for it.  This is one of those times.  Your rights are conferred by your creator, and that’s why they are unalienable.  The constitution merely recognizes and acknowledges those rights.

You have rights to your “weapons of war,” and so do I.  And the police have no right to invade your castle.  And we have a right to demand better of those who would adjudicate our laws than we have in judge Walton.

Read David and Kurt at Examiner.

John Richardson (via David Codrea).

Judge Winston Kidd extended his Temporary Restraining Order against HB 2 until Friday according to “Jackson Jambalaya” who attended the proceedings this afternoon. The state argues that HB 2 only clarified the definition of concealed and that open carry is allowed under the MS Constitution of 1891.

Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Rankin) who authored HB 2 released this statement earlier today before the beginning of the hearing.

“The Amended Complaint filed with the Hinds County Circuit Court on July 1, 2013 alleges that House Bill 2 (which defined the term “concealed”) is unconstitutional on three grounds:

1) “Unconstitutionally vague” …

2) “Overbroad” …

3) “Arbitrary and Capricious.” This is where it gets most interesting. The complaint alleges that the definition “is arbitrary and capricious in excusing persons who wish to openly-carry firearms from the license requirements imposed on persons who wish to carry concealed firearms.” TRANSLATION: HINDS COUNTY OFFICIALS WANT TO REQUIRE GUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF ALL GUNS BEING CARRIED BY MISSISSIPPIANS. THIS IS THE SAME LINE OF THINKING BEING PUSHED IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND NEW YORK CITY, RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD.”

Vagueness has no bearing whatsoever on the latitude given to a judge, or in other words, this isn’t a good justification for barring a law, and the judge has no right under the rubric of “vagueness” to do such a thing.

Same with “overbroad.”  But it is indeed most interesting that arbitrary and capricious is included, and it makes the case for judge Kidd doing what he did laughable.  Many laws are arbitrary and capricious – the legal drinking age, speed limits, most traffic laws, zoning regulations, etc.  My point isn’t that we should change the legal drinking age or amend the speed limit to 100 MPH.

The point is that if judge Kidd were going to use arbitrary and capricious as a justification for throwing a law out (rather than the more classic reason that a law does not comport with the constitution), he’s got a lot of work to do and most laws would disappear from the books.

No, judge Kidd has another agenda, and it is this agenda that does not comport with the constitution.

Prior:

Mississippi Supreme Court Denies Petition To Undo Open Carry Block

Mississippi Judge Blocks Open Carry Law

There is an interesting discussion thread at reddit/guns on whether you open carry when you hike.  There is some good information, some bad.  Take it all with a grain of salt.

We have discussed open carry before, and how laws against open carry are an artifact of Jim Crow laws.  They should all be repealed, each and every one of them.  Furthermore, see my Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense for a discussion of the ubiquity of weapons and their open carry in Colonial America.

But regarding the open carry of weapons when you hike or camp, you should do it.  There are threats in the East, from Coyotes (which can be aggressive), to Black Bear, to snakes and other threats.  In the West the problem becomes even more severe, with Brown Bear, Cougar (Mountain Lion, Panther or various other names), and even Jaguar in the Southwest.  And of course, there is the omnipresent threat of evil humans with which to contend.

The discussion thread gives some examples of threats (and also see here), and I have given an example of a man who saved his life by carrying a .45 pistol while camping.  Whether legal in any specific state or not, open carry is wise in the wilds since need for the weapon is likely to be an immediate and urgent need.

However unsafe you are in urban America, you are even less safe when you go into the wilds.  Carry weapons.  Have them at your rapid disposal.  Know how to use them.  Don’t be a victim.